There was an article on the front page of the Birmingham News this Sunday entitled, "State Leads Nuclear Comeback". The focus of the article was the re-opening of the Brown's Ferry Nuclear plant near Athens, AL. The fear of disaster at the plant was mentioned briefly, but, as usual, none of the real problems with nuclear energy were mentioned.
In the age of global warming, the prospect of "clean" nuclear energy is indeed seductive. But the collective failure of the public to recognize the recklessness of using it is, to me, breath-taking.
Most people I know who are smart, concerned about the environment, and well-meaning, are totally in favor of nuclear energy. I used to be among them.
...until I stepped back and looked at the big picture.
The problem with nuclear Energy is that it produces wastes that remain dangerous for about one hundred millennia. That's right. Haven't you heard? I'm not surprised. The fact is, nuclear wastes remain dangerous for about 100,000 years. That's roughly half the time our species has existed on the planet so far.
Most discussions I have read concern themselves with keeping the material safe for a few thousand years or so. Do you see a problem here?
Is it reasonable or ethical to litter the Earth with thousands of tons of shit that won't go away, uhm, for like practically ever?
All of the arguments that I have heard in favor of nuclear energy fall woefully short of reason, common sense, or any sort of ethical standard. Allow me to enumerate them:
1) "but we're destroying the atmosphere with pollutants from coal burning energy plants!"
True. And we need to fix that. We certainly don't need to simply delay the effects of burning coal. If WE mess up the atmosphere, it seems to me that WE should suffer the consequences. And I'm not convinced that using nuclear energy actually reduces coal consumption in the long run. Generally, humans will use about as much electricity as they can afford to use. How much energy do YOU waste? I waste a lot, because its cheap, which brings me to the next argument...
2) "we need cheap energy in order to maintain a growing economy and population!"
Nope. If you can't do something safely and ethically, don't do it. Besides, I think we can have a stable economy and a (gulp) growing population in the absence of very cheap centralized energy. The future of energy production needs to be decentralized, community-based production. And there needs to be an emphasis on efficiency and conservation. When people talk about a "growing economy", what that means in today's world, primarily, is the expanding power and wealth of first world corporations; corporations which have run rough-shod over the whole world, and whose power and influence has grown way past proportions that can be healthy in any capacity. I'm fine with a small check on the unbridled expansion of corporate power.
3) "Nuclear energy is safe, dude. We can store the wastes for decades, and by that time, we'll figure out what to do with it."
Maybe. But who knows? Maybe this technological juggernaut will not proceed on its current trajectory. But what is that trajectory, anyway? Are we headed for a StarTrek future wherein technology will save everything and there will be no stray dogs? Maybe. But maybe a gang of militant Amish will take over and jail anyone who uses a lawnmower. Or maybe we'll screw up the earth so badly that it can't support the techno juggernaut. Or maybe we'll decide at some point, that we need to rethink the way we're living and start to live sustainably. Is any of this likely? I have no idea. Do you?
The future is, by its nature, unpredictable. And using nuclear energy is betting the proverbial farm of our descendants, that they'll be able to fix what we fucked up.
4) "We'll send the waste into outer space"
I can't believe how many seemingly intelligent life forms have said this to me. Hello? Rockets blow up, rather frequently. When the space shuttle blew up over America, it was a minor environmental disaster. Imagine a rocket malfunctioning and scattering tons of radioactive waste over the land, or in the upper atmosphere, or the sea. Even if rockets are a lot safer in the future, they'll never be safe enough to justify that risk.
5) "We actually can store it safely for 100,000 years."
Theoretically. Nobody really knows exactly how to do that yet. And you still have to transport it, during which time it is subject to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and various other accidents. Its not worth it.
Got any more?
Here's a quote from the Birmingham News:
"Some critics say nuclear plants take too long for a payback on the money spent to build them. With a price tag of $2.5 billion to $4 billion each for a nuclear reactor, it would take a utility 25 to 40 years to recover its investment, according to an estimate from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group."
So, all you devout worshippers of technology, do you really think that by 40 years from now, we won't figure out a better way to produce energy than by producing wastes that don't go away for 100,000 years? Imagine a few decades from now if we've figured out the whole energy problem. We'll still have hundreds of tons of waste to transport, store, guard from terrorists, and otherwise deal with for the next 100,000 years. What were we thinking?
Lastly, the resurgent popularity of nuclear energy is in some way related to the Bush administration providing incentives to build reactors. Before you make national policy affecting an energy source, shouldn't you be able to pronounce that source correctly?
...just a thought
8 comments:
I couldn't agree more with every word written above. Even the most hardened economic rationalist cannot justify nuclear energy economically. It seems to only make sense in terms of geopolitical competition. Environmentally, I can't believe we're having the conversation. Even worse, is the fact that our state is also jumping on the ethanol from corn bandwagon which is even more ridiculous. Not only will growing and shipping this corn require enough oil to keep us in the middle east for decades to come, the pitfalls of monocropping, especially in terms of soil health & disease burden render any further economic justification moot. The only reason you hear Republicans and Democrats touting ethanol as a legitimate alternative fuel solution is political. There's a reason you'll never hear a presidential candidate say he's against anything related to corn production--the Iowa Caucus. Anyone who honestly supports ethanol as an alternative fuel would most certainly support ethanol from sugar can over corn because of it's supreme efficiency compared to corn. But, I digress. Nuclear energy sucks.
How much nuclear waste is made in relation to kilowatts? I wonder how France is dealing with this? France provides a good study on nuclear energy that I should educate myself more on....not sure where I stand there.
Scott- the ethanol idea is not a long term solution, but a very prudent short term idea. Transporting and shipping corn to facilities will require "enough oil to keep us in the middle east for decades"? come on man...you're smarter than that.
Shipping is just one factor and ethanol does not provide any short-term solution to the problem of extracting fossil fuels. You're simply wrong about this Joel
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, Cornell ecologist, David Pimentel conducted a study that found:
--corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
--switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
--wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production the study found:
--soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
--sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
So, what short-term solution are you talking about, Joel? Ethanol from corn is not sustainable and arguments can be made that it is less sustainable than oil over time because of soil exhaustion. But if we're just talking about what it means in terms of oil, Pimentel says: "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment. Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits."
Scott -
stats are stats...easy to manipulate. According to the USDA, ethanol produced from corn produces 34% more energy than is required to produce it:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
I'm sure these stats are buffed up with all sorts of unrealistic uses of the corn...however, I'm assuming that your cornell guy creates his own favorable numbers to get his results. For instance, he's likey assuming that natural gas based fertilizers are used rather than organic fertilizers; farm equipment using oil rather than 80% ethanol or biodiesel is used for farming purposes. He's likely assuming that the distillation process uses fossil fuels rather than the burning the corn stalks themselves. Is he considering the byproducts of the process such as waste mash, which is used as a high-protein cattle food? Is he assuming that delivery of the ethanol is shipped in 100% gasoline trucks rather than 80% ethanol, biodiesel or a pipeline? Ethanol from sugar cane from what little I know about it is a more efficient method, but as you can see, it's difficult to consider all of the variables. Greenhouse gas emissions are moderately reduced by corn based ethanol, and greatly reduced by cellulosic ethanol from sources such as switchgrass:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/systems_analysis/fuel_ethanol.html
None the less, ethanol is not a final solution. Oil produces a much higher amount of energy returned vs. energy invested than ethanol does - no doubt on my part. If you have a beef with ethanol being a permanent solution, I would agree. As a temporary solution, I see nothing more readily available than ethanol from corn, switchgrass and sugarcane. Corn is rampantly grown all over the north american hemisphere. Flex fuel vehicles can use both ethanol or gasoline. Ethanol appears like a viable idea that will temporarily reduce greenhouse emissions and greatly reduce our dependency on oil while things such as hydrogen fuel are developed.
Okay, so you're assuming that there will be complete ethanol compliance--an entire conversion while we wait for hydrogen and this is a "temporary" solution. What is temporary. According to the Cornell study (a little different than your random USDA stat), the US is importing oil and natural gas to produce ethanol. This will only change if there is a complete ethanol conversion--something simple and temporary you seem to think. Meanwhile, you also seem only concerned about greenhouse gases (which ethanol marginally reduces and for which cars receive too much of the blame). The effects on the soil, amount of water used (a resource we should be supremely concerned about), air pollution, and disease burden are much greater factors to be considered over a marginal reduction in greenhouse gases.
I also think that it is very generous of you to assume that these ethanol farmers who will not be mandated to use organic fertilizers, will magically decide to use them regardless of cost. I think assuming that synthetic and natural gas fertilizers will likely be used. That's my point. You can read the abstract of the study below. I've included the citation so you can look it up.
But before I paste the abstract, I can't ignore your point about using the byproducts to feed cattle. Cattle are ruminants. They are supposed to eat grass. Acidifying the rumen has allowed a lethal strain of e-coli that has always existed, to adapt to the newly acidified rumen (thanks to the unnatural corn diet) and can now live in our stomachs and make us sick and even dead. Before, if we ingested this strain of e-coli, our stomach acid killed it. So, this is not a good solution to your byproduct dilemma and I'll spare you the environmental hideousness that is the cattle feedlot. But I am having a hard time believing that your solution to reduce greenhouse gases is to torture cows, create fecal dust, increase disease burden, support monocropping, and exhaust water resources.
One more thing: You are right about sugarcane being more efficient. It's much better all around. Brazil is a fair case study.
Citation: Pimentel D, Patzek T, Cecil G. Ethanol production: energy, economic, and environmental losses. Review of Environmental Toxicology 2007;189:25-41
Abstract: The prime focus of ethanol production from corn is to replace the imported oil used in American vehicles, without expending more fossil energy in ethanol production than is produced as ethanol energy. In a thorough and up-to-date evaluation of all the fossil energy costs of ethanol production from corn, every step in the production and conversion process must be included. In this study, 14 energy inputs in average U.S. corn production are included. Then, in the fermentation/distillation operation, 9 more identified fossil fuel inputs are included. Some energy and economic credits are given for the by-products, including dried distillers grains (DDG). Based on all the fossil energy inputs, a total of 1.43 kcal fossil energy is expended to produced 1 kcal ethanol. When the energy value of the DDG, based on the feed value of the DDG as compared to that of soybean meal, is considered, the energy cost of ethanol production is reduced slightly, to 1.28 kcal fossil energy input per 1 kcal ethanol produced. Several proethanol investigators have overlooked various energy inputs in U.S. corn production, including farm machinery, processing machinery, and the use of hybrid corn. In other studies, unrealistic, low energy costs were attributed to such inputs as nitrogen fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides. Controversy continues concerning the energy and economic credits that should be assigned to the by-products. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that 17.0 billion L ethanol was produced in 2005. This represents only less than 1% of total oil use in the U.S. These yields are based on using about 18% of total U.S. corn production and 18% of cornland. Because the production of ethanol requires large inputs of both oil and natural gas in production, the U.S. is importing both oil and natural gas to produce ethanol. Furthermore, the U.S. Government is spending about dollar 3 billion annually to subsidize ethanol production, a subsidy of dollar 0.79/L ethanol produced. With the subsidy, plus the cost of production, the cost of ethanol is calculated to be dollar 1.21/L. The subsidy for a liter of ethanol is 45-times greater than the subsidy per liter of gasoline. The environmental costs associated with producing ethanol are significant but have been ignored by most investigators in terms of energy and economics. The negative environmental impacts on cropland, and freshwater, as well as air pollution and public health, have yet to be carefully assessed. These environmental costs in terms of energy and economics should be calculated and included in future ethanol analyses. General concern has been expressed about taking 18% of U.S. corn, and more in the future, to produce ethanol for burning in automobiles instead of using the corn as food for the many malnourished people in the world. The World Health Organization reports that more than 3.7 billion humans are currently malnourished in the world--the largest number ever in history.
Great discussion guys. Like Joel said, it is very difficult to calculate how much fossil fuel input it takes to manufacture an equivalent amount of fuel from biosources because of the array of factors involved. The disparity in various studies is striking.
I'm glad we can agree that biofuels aren't a long-term solution. But I do think that they can play a role in community-based energy production, e.g., communities that make their own biodiesel.
Scott,
I got as far as your first paragraph. You're far too insulting and quick to jump to conclusions. It's pointless to try to discuss anything with you; you're busy formulating half truth responses rather than attempting to actually process the argument. What a bummer.
wow. that's interesting joel. I think anyone reading this would notice that i have been trying to make arguments and backing them with facts. you're first comment had nothing to do with facts and everything to do with insulting me. You said, "come on man...you're smarter than that". Attacking the person and not the argument is an often used fallacy for people who do not have an argument of their own--ad hominem is the latin, I think. The intention of this blog, as I understand, is to raise the debate and have honest conversations about issues between people who mostly agree. My intention was not to insult you personally, but to address the issues you dismissed without supporting facts and by leveling a back-handed insult to me (someone you don't know at all). I think that for the purposes of preventing this blog from devolving into the same insult laden myopic crap that most blogs are these days, that we should avoid addressing each other and simply addressing specific points. The issues and the vast numbers of people affected by them are more important than the individuals posting comments. Everyone has the choice to read or not read someone's post, but leaving a comment saying you're not reading it because of x,y, and z does offers nothing to the conversation. After re-reading what I wrote, I am having difficulty seeing how it is insulting. I was a little fired up after being summarily dismissed with no supporting facts and I should not have addressed you personally. For that, I apologize. Still, I recommend to anyone who is interested to read this new study. While it is not all-encompassing (no study is), it takes into consideration the disparities of past studies and provides some very valuable information. Worth the read for anyone who cares about the usefulnees of alternative fuels.
Post a Comment